Keep the Play-in format or kill it with fire?

[itrsteve]

My biggest pain point with it is that after 82 games ... teams are who they are.
Allowing the whole season to come down to a 1 game elimination feels really odd

But they're not. Injuries happen, trades happen, vaccine restrictions get lifted, streaks and slumps happen.

I love the idea of a late season team being able to make a run just as much as a team with early success now lending way to a boring first round. Also, do or die games f*ing rule.

One Idea somebody had mentioned was allowing #1 to choose who they would want to play out of the 7/8 winner.

[SpreeS]

Need to add a 'within 5 games' clause.

Spurs are 12 games behind the TWolves, we don't deserve a shot to make the damn playoffs.

Change the rules.

T-wolves has two games at home to get in to PO with way worst opponent in second game. If they would fail in this level, then most likely they would be swept by 2nd place. 2/3 game difference....not big deal.

[CM17]

Some say the play-ins bring more excitement.

Well, without the play-ins the situation in the east would be pretty exciting. 4 teams battling for 2 spots. But now I just think - meh, who cares what position they have, they have to play each other anyway.

Also, there is always concern that 82 might be too many games. Now two teams have to play 83 and 84 games to get into the playoffs.

But I doubt they will get rid of it, so tweak it at least. Only >50% teams get a chance.

[jefe]

I think it's great and one of the best innovations that the league has implemented in a long time. I can't fathom people being against it.

[JayMKE]

Kill it, too many teams make playoffs already. Need to find ways to make regular season mean more, 7th/8th seeds are mostly just fodder and the play in is just a sideshow on top of it.

Personally I think there should be fewer playoff teams not more, 8 preferably.

[Harry Garris]

I hate it. Over half of the teams make it as it was. It devalues the regular season when a team can be 10+ games under .500 and have a shot at the title. But looking at the pole I can see I am in the minority. Whatever. Maybe all the teams should get into the playoffs. Why stop at 20 of the 30 teams?

The lowest seeded team to ever win the finals was a 6 seed. We've never had a 7 or 8 seed even make a finals run. It's hard to imagine it ever happening for an even worse team in a 9 or 10 seed.

So I think the risk of a 9 or 10 seed unfairly making the playoffs over a team that had a better record due to the play-in tournament and winning the championship is so low it's really not worth worrying about.

[shoresy69]

I love it the way it is, but I'd be completely fine with the requirement of going .500 or better. It doesn't even feel like an arbitrary cutoff, it's simply asking a team to win half their games.

[Mauro Pedrosa]

It’s a triumph

[Edrees]

My biggest pain point with it is that after 82 games ... teams are who they are.
Allowing the whole season to come down to a 1 game elimination feels really odd

Agreed. The NBA has always been different than the NFL or NCAA in that they don't do the "one game winner takes all" style. They do sample size, and I have always loved that because 1 game can be an accident, but over 7 games you can be much more confident the best team won.

The NBA has lucked out in that they've had such top tier talent in the play-in games thus far. LeBron, Steph Curry, Durant in only a couple years. There will inevitably be years where it's a more traditional mediocre 7th-10th seeds and the games won't have nearly the same draw.

The west playins are meaningless this year. to the reason the play in was established which is for ratings of an exciting best of 1. Nobody is gonna tune in to watch spurs vs pelicans.

[wegotthabeet]

Kill it, too many teams make playoffs already. Need to find ways to make regular season mean more, 7th/8th seeds are mostly just fodder and the play in is just a sideshow on top of it.

Personally I think there should be fewer playoff teams not more, 8 preferably.

I agree the playoffs should be 8 teams only. Problem is that with an 82 game regular season most teams would check out by around the All-Star game making for a really dull 2nd half. Here's my idea...

Regular season: 50 games (2 x 25 vs every team not in the same division). Best record after 50 games get the first playoff spot and home court throughout the playoffs.

All-star break then...

Divisional games: 24 games (4 x 6 only against divisional teams). Best record after 24 games wins the division and 6 divisional winners get the next 6 spots.

Last chance Tournament: the remaining teams play a March Madness style tournament for the last playoff spot.

Gives meaning to the regular season and the games ramp up in importance as the season progresses. Every team would have 3 chances to make the playoffs and the playoffs would only be the very best teams in the league.

[Upperclass]

^ A tournament for all non-playoff teams for the last two spots would be interesting.. would Teams like OKC want to continue the tank on such a high profile platform..

[Nate505]

Kill it, too many teams make playoffs already. Need to find ways to make regular season mean more, 7th/8th seeds are mostly just fodder and the play in is just a sideshow on top of it.

Personally I think there should be fewer playoff teams not more, 8 preferably.

I agree the playoffs should be 8 teams only. Problem is that with an 82 game regular season most teams would check out by around the All-Star game making for a really dull 2nd half. Here's my idea...

Regular season: 50 games (2 x 25 vs every team not in the same division). Best record after 50 games get the first playoff spot and home court throughout the playoffs.

All-star break then...

Divisional games: 24 games (4 x 6 only against divisional teams). Best record after 24 games wins the division and 6 divisional winners get the next 6 spots.

Last chance Tournament: the remaining teams play a March Madness style tournament for the last playoff spot.

Gives meaning to the regular season and the games ramp up in importance as the season progresses. Every team would have 3 chances to make the playoffs and the playoffs would only be the very best teams in the league.

That's a pretty interesting idea. I don't hate it, though I do have a concern. Say the Suns are the first 50 winner. Do they have any incentive to play well in the next round against the other Pacific Division teams? And if they do and win it, does the playoff spot go to whoever finished 2nd?

That said, it's a pretty outside the traditional box approach to things. I kinda like it.

[wegotthabeet]

^ A tournament for all non-playoff teams for the last two spots would be interesting.. would Teams like OKC want to continue the tank on such a high profile platform..

that would also work well. top 3 from each Conference or top 6 in the league then the final 24 teams play for the last two spots.

[Bobbymcgee]

Get rid of it. Pretty unfair for the 7 seed.

[ForeverTFC]

I think it has been great. It's created 3 distinct races in each conference: 1-4, 5-6, 7-8. I think it actually makes the 82 games matter more because of it - gives me some Champions League/Europa League vibes.

[wegotthabeet]

Kill it, too many teams make playoffs already. Need to find ways to make regular season mean more, 7th/8th seeds are mostly just fodder and the play in is just a sideshow on top of it.

Personally I think there should be fewer playoff teams not more, 8 preferably.

I agree the playoffs should be 8 teams only. Problem is that with an 82 game regular season most teams would check out by around the All-Star game making for a really dull 2nd half. Here's my idea...

Regular season: 50 games (2 x 25 vs every team not in the same division). Best record after 50 games get the first playoff spot and home court throughout the playoffs.

All-star break then...

Divisional games: 24 games (4 x 6 only against divisional teams). Best record after 24 games wins the division and 6 divisional winners get the next 6 spots.

Last chance Tournament: the remaining teams play a March Madness style tournament for the last playoff spot.

Gives meaning to the regular season and the games ramp up in importance as the season progresses. Every team would have 3 chances to make the playoffs and the playoffs would only be the very best teams in the league.

That's a pretty interesting idea. I don't hate it, though I do have a concern. Say the Suns are the first 50 winner. Do they have any incentive to play well in the next round against the other Pacific Division teams? And if they do and win it, does the playoff spot go to whoever finished 2nd?

That said, it's a pretty outside the traditional box approach to things. I kinda like it.

Worst case scenario they would have the luxury of resting key players for the divisional games, trying new lineups, giving young players a chance to prove their worth and would be the only team with that luxury. If they won both the regular season and the division the title then the 2nd place team within that division would get the playoff spot. It could also be a point of pride like trying to win the triple crown; regular season champ, division champ, Larry O'B.

The Suns were clearly the best team during the regular season this year, but a team like the Bulls that got off to really strong start could have had the best record after 50 games. Had the Bulls finished with the best record after 50 they'd be in and could rest guys, while a team like Milwaukee would most likely win the division title.

Another idea could be if you win the first 50 you get home court throughout the playoffs, but if you win both the regular season and the division you get to choose your opponent for each round until the Finals. Many different ways to approach this, the main point is that it would keep teams, fans and players engaged all year and the storylines would become more interesting as the season progresses.

[Parataxis]

I love it the way it is, but I'd be completely fine with the requirement of going .500 or better. It doesn't even feel like an arbitrary cutoff, it's simply asking a team to win half their games.

And what would you do if the 8th seed is 40-42 at the end of the season? If being a 500 team is a requirement for the post-season, then it seems weird to let some under 500 teams in.

[SK21209]

Here are the records of the 7 and 8 seeds in each conference over the last five years:

2021 - 7 Celtics 36-36; 8 Wizards 34-38; 7 Lakers 42-30; 8 Warriors 39-33
2020 - 7 Nets 35-37; 8 Magic 33-40; 7 Mavericks 43-32; 8 Blazers 35-39
2019 - 7 Magic 42-40; 8 Pistons 41-41; 7 Spurs 48-34; 8 Clippers 48-34
2018 - 7 Bucks 44-38; 8 Wizards 43-39; 7 Spurs 47-35; 8 Timberwolves 47-35
2017 - 7 Pacers 42-40; 8 Bulls 41-41; 7 Grizzlies 43-39; 8 Blazers 41-41

I don't understand that outcry about these 7 and 8 seeds that have "earned" their playoff spot and shouldn't have to face a one game play in. The majority of the time, these are exceedingly mediocre, .500 basketball teams. They haven't "earned" ****. Even if they're 5, 6, 7 hell 10 games better record wise than the 9 and 10 seeds, is it so much to ask that you beat a team you're much better than in one actually important game to secure your playoff spot? People talk about "hot shooting nights" from the lower seed like we're playing pop a shot at the arcade and there is absolutely nothing you can do if your opponent is making some threes.

As a fan, I want the team most capable of making a 1/8 or 2/7 series interesting in the playoffs, because frankly those series are usually pretty boring. A lot of times, at the end of the season there is a young team that is starting to click or a good team that's been ravaged by injuries but is getting healthier that can only make it to the 9 or 10 seed given the early season whole they fell into. I'd much rather watch that team in the playoffs than a treadmill team that's been .500 all season long and was probably picked to be exactly that before the season. This year, for example, I'd rather see the Hawks figure some things out toward the end of the season and be the 8 seed, as opposed to the Cavs who are limping to the finish line due to injuries.

[matt6715]

Tweak it because games between teams matter. Wolves and Clippers both deserve to be in the playoffs. The East on the other hand, the Hawks/Nets should battle it out for the 8th seed and it shouldn't settle on tie breakers.

I think the best solution is some approach like the bubble where teams that are x games behind do not compete.

[Schiltzenberger]

Kill it with fire.

It was a dumb idea that ads nothing to the game. 7th and 8th have historically done nothing, so now we wanna see 9th or 10th do nothing as well...... oh but wait, we get an exciting cripple fight to see who gets to be cannon fodder to a well rested top seed.... so exciting!!!!
There is an 82 game play-in, why give teams another chance to snatch a playoff spot if they couldn't do it after 82 games?

The only people that like it are from the participation trophy generation.

If there was no play-in we'd have some exciting games in the East as 4 teams fight for the last 2 spots. The West would be settled, but with the play-in, now a couple of really bad teams get a shot. On what planet do the Pelicans or Spurs deserve a chance to steal a playoff spot?

Of all the sports I've watched over the years, the NBA play-in idea is probably the dumbest idea I've seen.